‘

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one..." (Darwin, "Origin")

In his March 17 editorial, Prof. Krishtalka seems to display the same dogmatic attitude as the medieval church which condemned Galileo as a heretic. By analogy, not all, whether scientists or laypersons, who don't accept evolution as fact, are heretics worthy of derision.

However, much of the "fact" of evolution is supposition and extrapolation from microevolution. Does the (supposed) refutation of creationism equate to the substitution of (macro) evolutionary theory? No. Does the fossil record support it? No. Does it explain the Cambrian "explosion" of life forms? No. Does homologous resemblance unequivocally substantiate it? No. Moreover, as Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, establishes in "Darwin's Black Box," the Darwinian theory of evolution fails "to account for the molecular structure of life."

So "let's not promote fable as fact to the detriment of both." The truth is, there's plenty of fable in Darwinian theory, and the real emerging challenge to the "hallowed temple" of evolutionary theory comes not from creationists, but from "heretic" scientists.

Charles Schumann,

3111 Longhorn Dr.

Writer sees humor

To the editor:

I find it very humorous that Leonard Krishtalka ("Evolution theory explains fact") cannot produce any facts to support evolution. His greatest defense of evolution is his argument that creationists must explain male nipples. That to me is funny.

Maybe Leonard has spent too much time in the Natural History Museum and now thinks his stuffed exhibit is the real world, and he is the director-god. Because only in scientific debate does his slash and burn theory of argument go by unchecked. Few of us have the time Leonard does to research all the facts, and all he can come up with is pigs' feet? Come on. We should expect more from state, tax-funded employees.

Leonard should know it's not in the creationist model that all design must be justified by purely pragmatic reasons. Pigs' feet are ugly, and maybe meant to be ugly so that we can appreciate those things that are beautiful.

The point Leonard makes that creationists hold on to their model because they can't face the pain of the truth does not accurately take into account the pain an evolutionist would have to overcome to see clearly that there is a Creator, and that our lives are measured by Him.